Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Division of Mechanics
August 2, 2015
Erik Olofsson
LIU-IEI-TEK-A–15/02319—SE
Copyright
The publishers will keep this document online on the Internet – or its possible re-
placement –from the date of publication barring exceptional circumstances. The on-
line availability of the document implies permanent permission for anyone to read, to
download, or to print out single copies for his/hers own use and to use it unchanged
for non-commercial research and educational purpose. Subsequent transfers of copy-
right cannot revoke this permission. All other uses of the document are conditional
upon the consent of the copyright owner. The publisher has taken technical and ad-
ministrative measures to assure authenticity, security and accessibility. According
to intellectual property law the author has the right to be mentioned when his/her
work is accessed as described above and to be protected against infringement. For
additional information about the Linköping University Electronic Press and its pro-
cedures for publication and for assurance of document integrity, please refer to its
www home page: http://www.ep.liu.se/.
c Erik Olofsson
1
Abstract
2
Acknowledgements
A lot of support has been put in to this project, both from the university and from
Scania. The author of this report is therefore eager to show his appreciation.
First of all Martin Hede (Scania) deserves to be shown gratitude for the helpful
discussions and support throughout the project. So too does Uno Andersson (Scania)
for the generous availability of courses and software. Also the supervisor of the
project, Bo Torstenfelt (LiU) deserves a special mentioning for the sound advice and
encouragement. A special mentioning also to the members of the steering commitee
at Scania: Henrik Bruce for all the valuable input, Jonas Hagsjö for all the help with
verifying models and to Mikael Thellner. Thank you also Christian Skoog (LiU) for
the corrective reading, fresh perspective, and excellent opposition.
Erik Olofsson
Södertälje, August 2, 2015
3
Contents
1 Introduction 8
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3 Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.4 Problem specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.5 Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.6 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.7 Other considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2 Theoretical Background 12
2.1 Sources of Nonlinearity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2 Submodeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3 Element formulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3 Method 15
3.1 Element formulation for beam structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2 Script aided analysis setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.3 Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.4 Load Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5 Conclusions 38
A Appendix I
A.1 General Analysis Connection and Rigid connection property . . . . . II
A.2 One-Click-Publish A Series of Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI
A.3 One-click-create a series of General Analysis Connections and Rigid
Connection properties between series of publications . . . . . . . . . IX
A.4 Submodeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV
4
List of Figures
4.1 ISO view of Von Mises Stress field from Catia Lateral Loading Load
Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.2 ISO view of Von Mises Stress field from Abaqus Reference Lateral
Loading Load Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.3 Collocation of deformation on top right flange edge due to Lateral
Loading according to method in Section 3.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.4 ISO view of Von Mises Stress field from Catia Frame Torsion Load
Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.5 ISO view of Von Mises Stress field from Abaqus Reference due to the
Frame Torsion Load Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.6 Collocation of deformation on top right flange edge due to Frame
Torsion according to method in Section 3.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.7 ISO view of Von Mises Stress field from the Catia Vertical Load on
Kingpin case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.8 ISO view of Von Mises Stress field from Abaqus Reference due to
Vertical Load on Kingpin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.9 Comparison of nodal displacement on top right flange edge due to
Vertical Load on Kingpin according to method in Section 3.3 . . . . 34
4.10 Collocation of nodal displacement on top right flange edge due to
taking Nonlinear geometry into account in Lateral Loading loadcase 35
4.11 Difference in nodal displacement due to taking Nonlinear geometries
into account in Lateral Loading loadcase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5
LIST OF FIGURES
6
List of Tables
3.1 Mean deflection in loaded direction of nodes on edge face due to unit
force [N] or torque [Nxm]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
U −U
3.2 100 Urefref using 10nodeTET as reference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.3 Convergence study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Background
Scania AB is one of the world’s leading manufacturers in the heavy transport seg-
ment. The company has been developing Trucks and associated support systems
since 1911 and has a sales and service organisation spanning more than a hundred
countries.
An integral part of the truck is the Chassis frame. Being the main load bearing
structure of the truck, well-conditioned design of the Chassis frame is paramount to
the success of the truck as a whole.
The Chassis frame, pictured in Figure 1.1 is the foundation on which the rest
of the truck is mounted. It comes in many configurations, where the needs of the
customer are reflected in the payload that the Frame is fitted with and what combi-
nation of driving condition and speed it is to handle. The Frames varies in length,
thickness of members and number of crossbeams but has several governing charac-
teristics.
• Characteristics
– Steel and cast iron is used for both cross and lengthwise beams
– The lengthwise beams have a “C” shaped cross section
– The crossbeams run in an orthogonal direction between the lengthwise
beams
– Rivets are used, where applicable, for attaching non-removable geometries
– Bolts are used for removable geometries
8
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this thesis is to investigate ways of simplifying frame calculation
models currently being used for verification into something that can be used iter-
atively during design. Furthermore, the thesis is to meet the requirements for a
degree project - Master’s Thesis at Linköping University.
1.3 Goal
The goal of the project is to, at the conclusion of the project, present a recom-
mendation on how to approach using finite element (FE) analysis when designing
9
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
chassis frames. The recommendation is concerning both the effective setup of the
analysis, verification of the model using comparisons to a similar model in Abaqus
and handling the result.
1.5 Restrictions
Well posed restrictions are crucial in order to attain a depth of detail sufficient
enough to be both comprehensible and universal so that the methodology presented
herein can be mimicked on similar problems.
1.6 Method
The method is to, with Scania best practice documents for load cases as a guide,
establish load cases in Catia GAS, and find ways of making the calculation time suffi-
10
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
ciently short and accurate for efficient design work. The verification comprises com-
parisons of deformation and stress levels with similar results provided from Abaqus
models. In addition, analytical calculations are performed on particular geometries
where applicable. In addition to this exploring ways of enhancing the speed at which
the analysis case can be established via automating parts of the analysis setup will
be explored.
11
Chapter 2
Theoretical Background
In the following chapter, the necessary theory used in the method will be displayed.
12
CHAPTER 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
all sliding and rotations are considered infinitesimal. Abaqus/Standard allows for
a plethora of different approaches to contact discretization, tracking approach and
enforcement. The general contact formulation in Abaqus/Explicit utlilizes ”surface
weighting”-, ”surface polarity”- and ”finite sliding”-approaches by default [8].
2.2 Submodeling
Submodeling is a technique that enables studies of a local region of a large model
using boundary conditions based on an interpolation from the solution of the large
model. In the case of nodal deformation-based submodeling, according to Cook[3]
the procedure usually is as follows: A global model with a mesh refinement suf-
ficient for ensuring confidence in accuracy of the global deformation is run. The
displacement of the nodes surrounding the local region designated for subanalysis
is exported. The exported displacement is imposed on the boundary of the local
region via an interpolation scheme. This allows for mesh refinement in the local
region to an extent which can give a very high resolution description of the stress
field, at a relatively low computational cost. The submodeling approach is suitable
in cases where the detail of modeling in the studied region has a small effect on the
overall solution. If changes are to be made to the submodel structure, they need to
be sufficiently small as to not change the overall stiffness of the adjacent structure,
else they invalidate the submodel, calling for another global analysis[3]. Catia does
not support node-based export of deformation to submodel by default. There are,
however, methods of exporting and imposing nodal deformations. Such capabilities
in conjunction with a palette of possibilities of assigning master and slave node rela-
tionships, with both kinematically and least square approaches, opens up for, albeit
somewhat reduced, methodologies that are similar in effect to submodeling.
13
CHAPTER 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
14
Chapter 3
Method
15
CHAPTER 3. METHOD
16
CHAPTER 3. METHOD
Figure 3.4: Picture showing 6-node Triangle mesh combined with a Beam
element.
17
CHAPTER 3. METHOD
having 4/5 the amount of nodes. This is likely due to restrictions to the Catia solver
where multithreading (i.e. parallel computation) is restricted to the factorization
computation, Direct method and frequency solution steps. All other solution steps,
namely the ones associated with setting up the problem, are single threaded [14].
This punishes approaches where one part is replaced by several less complex parts,
as theese attempts show. The computational time cost saving from reducing the
amount of degrees of freedoms is more than made up for by the additional time
spent in the slower single threaded solver steps on one hand and the considerable
extra time spent on analysis setup on the other hand. One can therefore argue that
the most efficient way of shortening the analysis iteration time is to streamline the
analysis setup process. If, on the other hand, a less strict criterion for convergence
were to be used, the difference in the amount of nodes of the mesh between the
10-node TET to the Beam/10-node Tet would be bigger. See Table 3.3 for the
convergence study. This is due to the a behaviour of the automatic mesh procedure
where regions of the structure with sharp surface curvatures are prioritised over
non-complex parts of the structure in the mesh distribution. In the example using
10-node TET elements, the mesh refinement is mostly focused at in the structure
that is not approximated by the beam element. The Beam/10-node Tet-approach
would with this reasoning be more efficient at lower degrees of mesh refinement.
18
CHAPTER 3. METHOD
Table 3.1: Mean deflection in loaded direction of nodes on edge face due
to unit force [N] or torque [Nxm].
Specimen Xf ault [%] Yf ault [%] Zf ault [%] αyf ault [%]
10nodeTET - - - -
10nodeTET/Beam/Rigid -0.6198 1.3589 -0.2608 -1.7970
6nodeTRI/Beam/Rigid 39.2541 -22.2929 43.5319 18.7680
U −Uref
Table 3.2: 100 Uref using 10nodeTET as reference.
19
CHAPTER 3. METHOD
3.2.4 Submodeling
As seen in Section 3.4.4 most beams are connected using kinematic spiders at each
screw hole. The rigid spider element, as described in Section 2.3, has the property
that it connects a masternode to any amount of slave-nodes as if fastened by infinitely
stiff beam elements. This property, in conjunction with the capacity of exporting
and/or enforcing any nodal displacement and rotations enables a method similar in
principle to submodeling as seen in software like Abaqus. There are however a few
limitations. The portion of the structure that is the subject of the submodel must
be entirely delimited by either or a combination of:
Any use of other connections like gliding with friction, surface pressure or surface
contact will not render a result analogous to that of submodeling. The method goes
as follows and has been automated to some extent with scripting, see Appendix
Section A.1.1 for the code.
2. Export the displacement and rotation on the master nodes of the connections
delimiting the structure of the submodel from the global model.
20
CHAPTER 3. METHOD
This approach allows for changes to the mesh definitions of the submodel, giving
access to stress pictures of great detail. Increasing the mesh density of the geometry
feature subject to a connection property increases the amount of slave nodes in
the master/slave relationship. In this respect, the method is totally analogous to
submodeling interpolation schemes used in, for example, Abaqus.
3.3 Verification
For verification of the three load cases the global deformation of the side beams is
studied. The Catia models and their respective Abaqus reference is compared. To
this end, a generalized method of comparing global deformations have been estab-
lished. The method is comprised of applying a limited amount of post processing
using nodal deformation data. The following are the intended effects:
• It allows for comparisons between two different post processors.
• It enables comparison between two local deformations, with the option of elim-
inating any rigid body translations or rotations from the result.
21
CHAPTER 3. METHOD
3. Both the non-deformed and the deformed coordinates are translated into the
coordinate system.
4. Plotting the non-deformed and the deformed state in their respective coordi-
nate system renders a deformation picture which effectively has the rigid body
rotation eliminated.
Figure 3.7: Picture showing coordinate system alignment and points used
for elimination of rigid body rotations.
3.4.1 Cornering
The cornering load case stems from the phenomenon of considerable lateral bending
occurring when driving vehicles with three or more axles slowly in sharp corners,
visualised in Figure 3.8. Lateral reaction forces on the front axle wheels increase
as they are being steered into an angle. This, in conjunction with the back wheels
being aligned rigidly in the forward direction, generates large lateral forces on all
wheel pairs as seen in Figure 3.9. This results in a considerable z-aligned torque
on the bogie as well as a lateral bending of the frame. The severity is increased in
configurations with non-steered rear axles, as this increases lateral forces on the rear
axles and thus the z-aligned torsion of the bogie.
22
CHAPTER 3. METHOD
Tnd
(Fynr + Fynl ) Wrd − (Fznr + Fznl ) =0 (3.4)
2
23
CHAPTER 3. METHOD
24
CHAPTER 3. METHOD
25
CHAPTER 3. METHOD
The first load step is the one described in Figure 3.12. The second load step has
reversed enforced displacements in the vertical direction compared to the first, and is
identical in all other respects. This results in a non symmetrical deformation seeing
as the boundary conditions of the Frame Torsion Load Case is not symmetrical.
Stiff structure
Kinematic spider elements were used to simulate the bolts and rivets holding the
structure together. While Catia offers several options for estimating screw connec-
tions, these other approaches were not used in order to keep the complexity of the
26
CHAPTER 3. METHOD
Suspension
The front suspension was modeled with a shape and positioning of the blades and
linkage that represents normal, straight road driving conditions. No pre-tensioning
was applied to the springs. The stress result of the spring blades should therefore
not be expected to be accurate. The suspension blades transfers a predominately
vertical load between the blades while gliding against each other when subjected to
lateral loading. This gliding and at what loads it is initiated in conjunction with the
large deformations associated with pre-tensioning of the springs is a complex and
nonlinear phenomenon. With the solver being limited to small deformations and
rudimentary contact definitions the following scheme is applied: The spring blades
are discretizised using TET10 elements. The blades are fastened directly unto the
first axle using kinetic spiders. Furthermore the spring is connected to the frame
in the front using a pin connection with one rotational degree of freedom released,
and the rear using a link that transfers vertical and lateral load along with x-aligned
torsion. Because only small deformations are defined in the used solver, the linkage
is not expected to rotate in a fashion resembling any real life event.
Geometric nonlinearities
In terms of geometric nonlinearities, Abaqus gives the option of not taking into
account the geometric nonlinearities geometry for a certain loadstep by toggling
the property NLGEOM=yes/no. NLGEOM=no closely mimics the procedure used
by the Catia solver and NLGEOM=yes is the one used in the Abaqus reference
of this thesis. It should be noted that toggling NLGEOM=no does not render a
wholly linear analysis, since this procedure still allows for time dependent effects
like contact initiation, large sliding and other nonlinear phenomenons. In order
to make the comparison the nodal displacement of the top flange on the right side
beam is plotted without any coordinate transformation. This was chosen so as to not
eliminate any rigid body motion, seeing as such behaviour is integral to geometric
nonlinear phenomenons.
27
CHAPTER 3. METHOD
28
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1: ISO view of Von Mises Stress field from Catia Lateral Loading
Load Case
29
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figure 4.2: ISO view of Von Mises Stress field from Abaqus Reference
Lateral Loading Load Case
0.04 0.035
Nodal displacement in Y direction [m]
Abaqus U Abaqus U
y z
0.03
Catia Uy Catia Uz
0.03
0.025
0.02 0.02
0.015
0.01 0.01
0.005
0
0
−0.01 −0.005
−4 −2 0 2 4 −4 −2 0 2 4
Deformed X Coordinate [m] Deformed X Coordinate [m]
As seen in Figure 4.3 the nodal displacement of the top right sidebeam’s flange-edge
of the Catia model follows the characteristic of the Abaqus reference in the Lateral
Loading case. This indicates that the models have a similar lateral stiffness, at
least insofar as this set of boundary conditions are concerned. It should be noted
that this metric can be unintuitive in the sense that the cause of a region with a
30
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
large difference in nodal displacement can lie in a wholly other part of the structure.
For instance, the difference in the x = −1 to x = −4 section is likely due to a
misrepresentation of the stiffness in the region around the fifth wheel. It should
also be noted that this load case is likely considerably less sensitive to inaccuracies
in stiffness surrounding the front suspension than the Frame Torsion case because
the principal force is applied in the form of force vectors as opposed to enforced
displacements. The Von Mises stress rendering in Figure 4.1 exhibits the same
characteristics with a few notable exeptions. Many screw holes connecting cross
beams with side beams shows considerable stress concentrations in the Catia model.
The Abaqus model has more continuous stress fields close to side beam hole pattern
groups. This is likely due to the relatively high stiffness of the Catia rigid spiders
compared to the more fine tuned screw approximation models used in the reference
in Abaqus.
Figure 4.4: ISO view of Von Mises Stress field from Catia Frame Torsion
Load Case
31
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figure 4.5: ISO view of Von Mises Stress field from Abaqus Reference due
to the Frame Torsion Load Case
0.01 0.05
Nodal displacement in Y direction [m]
Abaqus U
z
0
0.04 Catia Uz
−0.01
0.03
−0.02
−0.04 Catia Uy
0.01
−0.05
0
−0.06
−0.07 −0.01
−4 −2 0 2 4 −4 −2 0 2 4
Deformed X Coordinate [m] Deformed X Coordinate [m]
As seen in Figure 4.6 there is a great discrepancy between the Catia result and the
reference. Figure 4.6a shows that Y-aligned displacement of the Catia result is more
than three (3) times that of the Abaqus equivalent. The lateral stiffness of the front
suspension, axle and wheels are disproportionally big, leading to the vertical push of
the enforced displacement translating into a lateral deformation. The effect of this
32
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
disproportionate twisting is propagating along the frame and is visible in Figure 4.6b
where the local stiffening of the crossbeams yields a distinct waveform of a larger
amplitude than the one that can barely be made out on the reference. Comparing
Figures 4.4 and 4.5 it can be seen that they tell the same story. All stress levels
of the Catia model is above what can be expected. This is especially prevalent in
the zones surrounding the interface between side- and cross-beam. However, when
disregarding the actual stress-level, the distribution is very much similar between
the Catia model and Abaqus reference.
Figure 4.7: ISO view of Von Mises Stress field from the Catia Vertical Load
on Kingpin case
33
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figure 4.8: ISO view of Von Mises Stress field from Abaqus Reference due
to Vertical Load on Kingpin
0.035
Nodal displacement in Z direction [m]
0.03
Abaqus Uz
0.025
Catia Uz
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
−0.005
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
Deformed X Coordinate [m]
Figure 4.9: Comparison of nodal displacement on top right flange edge due
to Vertical Load on Kingpin according to method in Section 3.3
The vertical load in the Kingpin load case does, as seen in Figure 4.9, result in a
relatively small deformation in the front portion of the frame in the Catia model.
The effect is, however, not as pronounced as it may seem from the graph alone.
The dominant force in this load case is applied vertically onto the structure very
close to the node that acts as origo of the coordinate system, i.e. the A-node seen
in Figure 3.7. Therefore, what may seem as a problem with the front portion of
the structure is the result of a poor ratio of vertical stiffness between the front-
and bogie-suspensions. The relatively high vertical stiffness of the bogie suspension
34
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
pushes up the mid section of the truck to a disproportionate degree. Likewise, the
relatively low vertical stiffness of the front suspension also adds to the phenomenon.
Lastly, the stiffness of the frame could be overestimated due to the stiffness added
from the motor- and/or kingpin-node being too high. The stress rendering seen
in Figure 4.7 has a similar distribution to that of the relevant Abaqus reference in
Figure 4.8 albeit as expected from the deformation result, the overall stress level is
lower.
−3
x 10
10
Nodal displacement in X,Y&Z direction [m]
Nlgeom=yes ux
Nlgeom=yes uy
Nlgeom=yes uz
Nlgeom=no ux
5
Nlgeom=no uy
Nlgeom=no uz
−5
−1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Deformed X Coordinate [m]
−5
x 10
3
Difference in Nodal displacement [m]
−1
−2
Nlgeom=yes ux − Nlgeom=no ux
−3
Nlgeom=yes uy − Nlgeom=no uy
−4 Nlgeom=yes uz − Nlgeom=no uz
−5
−1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Deformed X Coordinate [m]
As seen in Figures 4.10 and 4.11, no significant difference in the global deformation
of the side beams were introduced from assuming linear geometries. This does not
necessarily mean that there is no effect at all, as large movements of for example
the front springs could affect the stress-levels in close vicinity to that part of the
structure. This result does lend some credence to the validity of the assumption of
small deformations made in Section 1.5.2.
35
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
0.05
−0.01
−0.02
−0.03
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
Deformed X Coordinate [m]
−3
x 10
5
Difference in Nodal displacement [m]
−5
−10
LnPerturb=yes ux − LnPerturb=no ux
LnPerturb=yes uy − LnPerturb=no uy
−15 LnPerturb=yes uz − LnPerturb=no uz
−20
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
Deformed X Coordinate [m]
As seen in Figures 4.12 and 4.13, the effect of the Linear Perturbation is more
severe than that of geometrical nonlinearities. The effect seems to affect the lateral
deformation response at a significant rate. This could be due to the front suspension
being sensitive to change from large to small sliding assumptions. The lack of wavy
shape in the Z-aligned deformation can be explained as an effect of the relatively
small lateral deformation and is not a separate phenomenon. The ”waves” are due
to the otherwise continuous deformation of the top right side beam flange being
interrupted by the local stiffening where the side beam meets the crossbeams. This
is only visible during large lateral deformations.
36
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
37
Chapter 5
Conclusions
A method for performing design oriented calculations investigating the three load
cases, Lateral Loading, Frame Torsion and Vertical Load on Kingpin have been
developed.
• Three load cases have been established in the Generative Assembly Structural
analysis module of Catia (GAS). The setup of the model is by a large margin
the most time consuming part of the process.
• The load cases have been verified by comparisons to Abaqus references. The
difference in deformation and stress levels between the Catia model and Abaqus
reference are varying depending on the load case. The Lateral Loading case
shows less sensitivity to the differences in suspension stiffnesses compared to
the Frame Torsion case.
• The impact from differences in calculation software have been considered and
highlighted. The effect on the global deformation of the Abaqus reference
due to Geometrical nonlinearities is negligable. The effect due to contact
nonlinearities is considerable.
• The analysis setup time have been made considerably shorter by use of script
based automation. This approach to analysis setup is a potent time saving
possibility. Implementing fully automated analysis setup is conceivable.
• A method of utilizing submodeling for reducing the computation time has been
implemented. The method allows for importing deformations from other FEM
software.
38
Bibliography
39
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[15] Cambridge University Engineering Dept. What is the difference between Gen-
eral and Perturbation steps? url: http://www- h.eng.cam.ac.uk/help/
programs/fe/abaqus/faq68/abaqusf10.html (visited on 08/02/2015).
[16] Catia V5 R20 Generative Analysis Documentation. Analysis Assembly Method-
ology. url: http://catiadoc.free.fr/online/estug_C2/estugbt1603.
htm.
40
Appendix A
Appendix
I
APPENDIX A. APPENDIX
Language="VBSCRIPT"
Sub CATMain()
Set basicComponent1 =
basicComponents1.GetItem("SAMConnectionDesigner1.1")
basicComponent1.SetDimensions 0, 1, 1
Set basicComponent2 =
basicComponents1.GetItem("SAMConnectionDesigner2.1")
basicComponent2.SetDimensions 0, 1, 1
II
APPENDIX A. APPENDIX
analysisEntity1.name=("G_A_C -
("&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(1).LeafProduct.definition&"
("&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(1).LeafProduct.name&") connected to
"&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(2).LeafProduct.definition&"
("&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(2).LeafProduct.name&"))")
Set reference1 =
analysisManager1.CreateReferenceFromObject(analysisEntity4)
Set reference2 =
analysisManager1.CreateReferenceFromObject(analysisEntity4)
Dim bSTR1
bSTR1 = reference1.Name
Dim bSTR2
bSTR2 = reference1.Name
Dim bSTR3
bSTR3 = reference2.Name
Dim bSTR4
bSTR4 = reference2.Name
analysisEntity3.name=("R_C_P -
("&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(1).LeafProduct.definition&"
("&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(1).LeafProduct.name&") connected to
"&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(2).LeafProduct.definition&"
("&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(2).LeafProduct.name&"))")
End Sub
III
APPENDIX A. APPENDIX
A.1.2 Instruction
1
One-Click-Connection
General Analysis Connection &
Rigid Connection Property
in CATIA GAS
Used License: MD2+MDN+GAS+SPA
Used Macro: C_GAC&RCP.catvbs
Introduction
In this guide you will learn how to apply a General Analysis
Connection and Rigid Virtual Property via the use of a
macro.
For efficient use of this method it is recommended to assign
this macro to a hotkey.
1. only has to be performed if no Analysis Connection set
exists.
IV
APPENDIX A. APPENDIX
A.1.3 Instruction
3
1. Create Analysis
Connections Set
2. Execute macro
2 Standard procedure
V
APPENDIX A. APPENDIX
Language="VBSCRIPT"
Sub CATMain()
Set part1=partDocument1.Part
fileName = part1.Name
Set product1=partDocument1.Product
Set reference1 =
product1.CreateReferenceFromName(part1.name&"/!"&oSelection.Item(i).Value
.Name)
Next
End Sub
VI
APPENDIX A. APPENDIX
A.2.2 Instruction
1
One-click-Publish
A series of features
using macro
in CATIA
Used Macro: One_Click_Publish.catvbs
Introduction
In this guide you will learn how to publish a series of features
in a part via the use of a macro.
For efficient use of this method it is recommended to assign
this macro to a hotkey.
A suffix index is applied in the publication name on the form
”_#” starting at #=1 and increasing with the number of
publications in the series.
The order of selection determines the order of #.
VII
APPENDIX A. APPENDIX
A.2.3 Instruction
3
2. Execute macro
VIII
APPENDIX A. APPENDIX
Language="VBSCRIPT"
Sub CATMain()
publname2=publname1
For i = 1 To publications1.Count
Set publication1=publications1.Item(publname1&"_"&i)
Set publication2=publications2.Item(publname2&"_"&i)
If Err.Number = 0 Then
IX
APPENDIX A. APPENDIX
Set basicComponent1 =
basicComponents1.GetItem("SAMConnectionDesigner1.1")
basicComponent1.SetDimensions 0, 1, 1
Set basicComponent2 =
basicComponents1.GetItem("SAMConnectionDesigner2.1")
basicComponent2.SetDimensions 0, 1, 1
analysisEntity1.name=("G_A_C -
("&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(1).LeafProduct.definition&"
("&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(1).LeafProduct.name&") connected to
"&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(2).LeafProduct.definition&"
("&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(2).LeafProduct.name&"))")
'------------------------
'--------------------
Set reference1 =
analysisManager1.CreateReferenceFromObject(analysisEntity4)
Set reference2 =
analysisManager1.CreateReferenceFromObject(analysisEntity4)
Dim bSTR1
bSTR1 = reference1.Name
X
APPENDIX A. APPENDIX
Dim bSTR2
bSTR2 = reference1.Name
Dim bSTR3
bSTR3 = reference2.Name
Dim bSTR4
bSTR4 = reference2.Name
analysisEntity3.name=("R_C_P -
("&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(1).LeafProduct.definition&"
("&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(1).LeafProduct.name&") connected to
"&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(2).LeafProduct.definition&"
("&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(2).LeafProduct.name&"))")
End If
Next
End Sub
XI
APPENDIX A. APPENDIX
A.3.2 Instruction
1
One-click-create a series of
General Analysis Connections &
Rigid Connection Properties
using a series of publications
in CATIA GAS
Used Macro: Crawler_for_GAC&RCP.catvbs,
One_Click_Publish.catvbs
Introduction
In this guide you will learn how to create a series of General
Analysis Connections and Rigid Connection Properties
using a macro.
The macro works best using publication series made with the
macro One_Click_Publish.catvbs.
For efficient use of this method it is recommended to assign
this macro to a hotkey.
XII
APPENDIX A. APPENDIX
A.3.3 Instruction
3
2. Execute macro
1. Open Analysis
2. Select (Ctrl + Click) a random
feature on both parts that is to be
connected and run Macro.
3. Input the name of the publication
series used previously in the box.
4. Press OK.
5. The General Analysis Connections
and Rigid Analysis Connections
are now applied.
XIII
APPENDIX A. APPENDIX
A.4 Submodeling
A.4.1 Instruction
In order to export deformation the following is necessary:
3. Copy the deformation and rotation data and paste it into the excel interface
connected to the code. Write the name of the publication serie containing
the handle points in the cell to the right of the cell containing ’StartDispl’
command.
4. Run the macro ’Feuil1.CreationDisplacement’ from the excel file while simul-
taneously having the Analysis document activated in Catia.
A.4.2 Code
XIV
APPENDIX A. APPENDIX
'//================================================
'//================================================
choice = 0
strInput = InputBox(Prompt:=strMsg, _
choice = CInt(strInput)
XV
APPENDIX A. APPENDIX
End If
Wend
GetTypeFile = choice
End Function
'--------------------------------------------------
'--------------------------------------------------
Sheets("Feuil1").Select
If (column = 1) Then
End If
Range(Chain).Select
GetCell = ActiveCell.Value
End Function
GetCellA = GetCell(iRang, 1)
XVI
APPENDIX A. APPENDIX
End Function
GetCellB = GetCell(iRang, 2)
End Function
GetCellC = GetCell(iRang, 3)
End Function
GetCellD = GetCell(iRang, 4)
End Function
GetCellE = GetCell(iRang, 5)
End Function
GetCellF = GetCell(iRang, 6)
End Function
'--------------------------------------------------
'Example:
'--------------------------------------------------
'StartDispl R_V_P_H
'EndDispl
'StartDispl Virtual_Part_Handler
'EndDispl
'End
'--------------------------------------------------
XVII
APPENDIX A. APPENDIX
Chain = GetCellA(iRang)
Case Cst_strSTARTDispl
iValid = Cst_iSTARTDispl
publname = GetCellB(iRang)
Displ_ind = iRang
Case Cst_strENDDispl
iValid = Cst_iENDDispl
Case Cst_strSTARTLoft
iValid = Cst_iSTARTLoft
Case Cst_strENDLoft
iValid = Cst_iENDLoft
Case Cst_strSTARTCoord
iValid = Cst_iSTARTCoord
Case Cst_strENDCoord
iValid = Cst_iENDCoord
Case Cst_strEND
iValid = Cst_iEND
Case Else
iValid = 0
End Select
XVIII
APPENDIX A. APPENDIX
Exit Sub
End If
Chain2 = GetCellB(iRang)
Chain3 = GetCellC(iRang)
Chain4 = GetCellD(iRang)
Chain5 = GetCellE(iRang)
Chain6 = GetCellF(iRang)
If ((Len(Chain) > 0) And (Len(Chain2) > 0) And (Len(Chain3) > 0)) And
((Len(Chain4) > 0) And (Len(Chain5) > 0) And (Len(Chain6) > 0)) Then
X_D = CDbl(Chain)
Y_D = CDbl(Chain2)
Z_D = CDbl(Chain3)
X_R = CDbl(Chain4)
Y_R = CDbl(Chain5)
Z_R = CDbl(Chain6)
Else
iValid = Cst_iERRORCool
X_D = 0#
Y_D = 0#
Z_D = 0#
X_R = 0#
Y_R = 0#
Z_R = 0#
End If
End Sub
'--------------------------------------------------
'--------------------------------------------------
'Remark:
XIX
APPENDIX A. APPENDIX
'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
End Function
'--------------------------------------------------
'--------------------------------------------------
End If
End Function
'--------------------------------------------------
'--------------------------------------------------
Sub CreationDisplacement()
XX
APPENDIX A. APPENDIX
Set Restraint_analysis_entities =
Analysis_manager.AnalysisModels.Item(1).AnalysisCases.Item(1).AnalysisSet
s.Item("Restraints.1", catAnalysisSetSearchAll).AnalysisEntities
Set Load_analysis_entities =
Analysis_manager.AnalysisModels.Item(1).AnalysisCases.Item(1).AnalysisSet
s.Item("Loads.1", catAnalysisSetSearchAll).AnalysisEntities
iLigne = 1
'Analyze file
'Read a line
If (iValid = 0) Then
XXI
APPENDIX A. APPENDIX
Set Restr_basic_comp_axis =
Restr_basic_comps.GetItem("SAMRestrainAxis.1")
Restr_basic_comp_axis.SetValue "Values", 0, 0, 0, 1
Restr_basic_comp_DOF.SetDimensions 6, 1, 1
Restr_basic_comp_DOF.SetValue "Values", 1, 1, 1, 1
Restr_basic_comp_DOF.SetValue "Values", 2, 1, 1, 1
Restr_basic_comp_DOF.SetValue "Values", 3, 1, 1, 1
Restr_basic_comp_DOF.SetValue "Values", 4, 1, 1, 1
Restr_basic_comp_DOF.SetValue "Values", 5, 1, 1, 1
Restr_basic_comp_DOF.SetValue "Values", 6, 1, 1, 1
Set reference2 =
Analysis_manager.CreateReferenceFromObject(Restraint)
Set Forced_disp_basic_comp1 =
Forced_disp_basic_comps.GetItem("SAMEnfDispEntityPtr.1")
XXII
APPENDIX A. APPENDIX
Set Forced_disp_basic_comp_Y_D =
Forced_disp_basic_comps.GetItem("SAMEnfDispTransY")
Set Forced_disp_basic_comp_Z_D =
Forced_disp_basic_comps.GetItem("SAMEnfDispTransZ")
Set Forced_disp_basic_comp_X_R =
Forced_disp_basic_comps.GetItem("SAMEnfDispRotX")
Set Forced_disp_basic_comp_Y_R =
Forced_disp_basic_comps.GetItem("SAMEnfDispRotY")
Set Forced_disp_basic_comp_Z_R =
Forced_disp_basic_comps.GetItem("SAMEnfDispRotZ")
End If
iLigne = iLigne + 1
Wend
End Sub
'--------------------------------------------------
'Main program
'--------------------------------------------------
XXIII
APPENDIX A. APPENDIX
Sub Main()
TypeFile = GetTypeFile
CreationDisplacement
End Sub
XXIV